Capítulo 3: Control a alto nivel
3.2 Elección de plataforma embebida
As Morris Rossabi explains, “in Mongol eyes, his (Qubilai’s) success as a ruler would be measured at least in part by his ability to add wealth, men, and territory to his domain”.53 Perhaps in part reflecting the inertia of this view so deeply ingrained in his Chinggisid heritage, Qubilai waged a number of brutal military campaigns against neighbouring states. These include the comprehensive invasion of Southern Song territories, three very costly expeditions against Japan, and the conquest of Southeast Asia. Concurrently, as the sovereign, Qubilai also had to be the law-giver who delivered justice and maintained order in society. Records suggest that a wide range of sentences including capital punishment were meted out to convicts during Qubilai’s reign.54 Therefore, historical accounts are unequivocal that Qubilai was responsible for actions that appear, at least at first glance, to be in tension with the teachings, moral precepts and the dharmarāja ideals set out by ’Phags pa in Advice to the King.
It is important to recognise, however, that there is no strict consensus within Buddhist literature that a Dharma-abiding monarch does not have legitimate roles in waging wars and delivering punishments, or on whether they are subject to the eventual karmic consequences of such actions. On the one hand, some who have been called “ethically fundamentalists”55such as Candrakīrti uncompromisingly assert that a true Buddhist has no role in kingship given its inherent requirement to compromise the precept of ahiṃsā or non-violence and that rulers must face the full negative karmic consequences of the unwholesome actions in which they engage in the process of statecraft. On the other hand, more flexible positions accept a role for rulers in “punishing justly and adequately” and engaging in other ostensibly negative actions as long as they are driven by a compassionate motivation.56
53 Rossabi (1988: 76). 54 Rossabi (1988: 129−31). 55 Zimmermann (2006: 218). 56 Zimmermann (2006: 235−39).
Despite prominent exceptions such as Candrakīrti, this latter view is prevalent in ’Phags pa’s Mahāyāna tradition, and it implies that even the seemingly unwholesome actions of punishment and waging war do not necessarily entail negative karmic fruitions.57Mahāyāna sources such as Letter Sent to the King, Subjects and Monastics of Tibet58 and The Noble Teaching through Manifestations on the Subject of Skilful Means in the Bodhisattva’s Field of Activity (Skt. Ārya Bodhisattva gocara
upāyaviṣayavikurvaṇa nirdeśa sutra, Tib. Byang sems spyod yul thabs kyi yul la rnam ’phrul bstan pa’i mdo) also provide Buddhist rulers with conceptual resources to support just warfare and harsh punishments.59 For example, Letter Sent to the King, Subjects and Monastics of Tibet advises that “When it comes to critical matters of state, do not be restrained [by affection], even for your son, nor [by fear of accumulating] non-virtuous karma”.60
In a number of ’Phags pa’s works addressed to Mongol royalty, he does approve of the use of punishment where required, although he strongly rejects capital punishment. For example, in his epistle to prince Jibig Temür, ’Phags pa writes, “It is permissible to repudiate those to be tamed by reprimanding, beating, depriving and disgracing them, but you should not detach them from their lives”.61 Moreover, agreement that Qubilai would maintain his role as law-giver was explicitly included in the arrangement that Chabi brokered between ’Phags pa and Qubilai.
The ethical framework to which he performatively subjected himself and the associated social constructs and expectations, as well as his vows as a Buddhist monk, suggest that ’Phags pa was unlikely to have unequivocally endorsed, at least in public, the waging of wars; nevertheless, there are accounts that suggest ’Phags pa extended his collaboration in some of Qubilai’s campaigns. Evoking the Mahākāla deity to participate in battles is ’Phags pa’s most prominent reported contribution to Qubilai’s military efforts.62Consistent with the Mahāyāna approach, a manual by ’Phags pa for the invocation of Mahākāla explains that the motivation for calling on the deity should
57 Zhi ba lha, Bslab pa kun las btus pa,
http://tibetan.works/etext/reader.php?collection=tengyur&index=3940, pp. 91B−92B (accessed 10/02/2016); Cecil Bendall (1957:162).
58 Tshul khrims rin chen (1982–1985b: 271–79).
59 For more on Ārya Bodhisattva gocara upāyaviṣayavikurvaṇa nirdeśa Sūtra, see Stephen Jenkins (2010:
59–75) and Lozang Jamspal (2010). For a Tibetan version, see ’Phags pa byang chub sems dpa’i spyod
yul gyi thabs kyi yul la rnam par ’phrul ba bstan pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo,
http://tibetan.works/etext/reader.php?collection=kangyur&index=147 (accessed, 10/02/2016). For broader discussions of warfare and violence in Buddhism, also see the other chapters in Michael Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer (2010); and Damien Keown (2015: 470–84).
60
Tshul khrims rin chen (1982–1985b: 274).
61 Chos rgyal ’Phags pa (1968i: 187, folio 3).
62 Dpal ’byor bzang po (1985: 280–88). For a summary of ’Phags pa’s involvement in introducing the
Mahākāla deity to the Mongol court according to Chinese sources, see Shen (2004: 203–04).
be “…compassion towards others”63 as a precondition for requesting that Mahākāla “destroy hated enemies, obstacles, demons and the many others that hinder, as if they were shattered into particles”.64 As chapter one explained, ’Phags pa was also reported to have been involved in the appointment of General Bayan Baharidai65 and in helping Qubilai to resolve difficulties in financing the military.66 The Religious History of the Ngor (Tib. Ngor chos ’byung) further suggests that ’Phags pa’s brother Phyag na rdo rje, who was not a monk, even participated in a battle against the Southern Song.67
Moreover, the fact that Qubilai engaged in actions that were inconsistent with the moral codes and behaviour that ’Phags pa’s discourse sought to inculcate does not mean that the discourse was completely inconsequential. As chapter one also discussed briefly, historical accounts attribute a range of characteristics and actions consistent with aspiring to live up to these teachings.
For example Qubilai is known for his generous treatment of subjects. According to Rossabi, Qubilai “sought to govern, not simply exploit…, he endeavoured to protect the welfare and promote the interests of his diverse subjects in a time when such considerations are rare”.68 Moral obligations towards his subjects also appear more
frequently in official statements under Qubilai—a development that Sino-centric historians past and present attribute solely to Chinese influence, 69 completely
overlooking ’Phags pa and the range of commitments Qubilai had made to him.
Further, a seventeenth century Mongolian chronicle, The Precious Summary, credits Qubilai with conducting a government based on the ten meritorious doctrines and with pacifying the world.70 This account is supported by The White History of the Ten Virtues. As suggested by its title, this thirteenth century Mongol chronicle believed to be from Qubilai’s period promulgates the Buddhist principles of the ten virtuous codes of conduct, an idealised form of statecraft closely associated with dharmarāja rulership in which religion and the state operate in unison.71 Aśoka and the Three Dharma Kings of Tibet are all credited with promoting these virtuous codes of conduct.
Another noteworthy example is the leniency of the penal system during Qubilai’s reign, a fact that contradicts the common perception of harshness of Mongol
63 Chos rgyal ’Phags pa (1968d: 138, folio 3). 64
Chos rgyal ’Phags pa (1968d: 138−40).
65
Dpal ’byor bzang po (1985: 280–88); Shākya rin chen sde (1988: 82).
66 Dpal ’byor bzang po (1985: 279).
67 Ngor chen Dkon mchog lhun drub and Ngor chen Sangs rgyas phun tshogs (1973: 328). 68
Rossabi (1988: 118, 231).
69 For an example, see Franke (1978: 16). 70Sayang Sečen (1967: 77).
71 C.Ž. Žamcarano (1955: 51).
rulers against criminal offenders. This leniency was acknowledged and even praised by the Ming officials who compiled the Yuan Shi. 72 Paul Heng-chao Ch’en, a contemporary scholar on the legal system during the Yuan era, highlights the surprisingly low numbers of people who were sentenced to death during Qubilai’s reign.73 Ch’en ascribes this fact to Qubilai’s attitude towards capital punishment, noting that “as early as 1260, Shih-tsu (Qubilai) stressed to his officials that any case involving a capital offense must be thoroughly reviewed before the death penalty was meted out”.74 Ch’en then explains that “Shih-tsu often personally reviewed cases involving death penalty and acted to spare the criminals’ lives by reducing their sentences”.75 As one example of such personal involvement by Qubilai, Ch’en points to an extract from the Yuan Shi, which explains that in 1287, “when some 190 people were to be put to death, Shih-tsu intervened and said: ‘Prisoners are not a mere flock of sheep. How can they be suddenly executed? It is proper that they be instead enslaved and assigned to pan gold with a sieve’”.76
Qubilai and his grandsons were also known for their granting of amnesties to inmates. It is recorded that such grants were made more quickly and favourably if they were at the request of Tibetan monks (possibly ’Phags pa and his successors). Such amnesties provoked criticism from senior Chinese officials who sought to make the penalties more severe.77 Furthermore, Tibetan sources credit ’Phags pa for successfully persuading Qubilai to renounce the annual drowning of thousands of Chinese, which was a form of population control that the Mongols were reportedly carrying out.78 Sources also report that Qubilai prohibited the Islamic halal method of slaughtering sheep, which he deemed an inhumane practice.79
These accounts suggest that the discourse ’Phags pa created had political and social implications through its influence on Qubilai’s policies, a fact that appears to be
72 Paul Heng-chao Ch’en (1979: 44). 73 Paul Heng-chao Ch’en (1979: 44–5). 74 Paul Heng-chao Ch’en (1979: 46). 75
Paul Heng-chao Ch’en (1979: 46).
76 Paul Heng-chao Ch’en (1979: 44).
77 Paul Heng-chao Ch’en (1979: 46) and Franke (1981: 316–17).
78 Qubilai is said to have vowed to stop this practice as an offering to ’Phags pa in gratitude for his
bestowal of the Hevajra empowerment for the third time. ’Phags pa composed a dedication prayer that celebrated this change of heart. See A myes zhabs (2012a: 120). The prayer reads: ནམ་མཁའི་ཁམས་ནི་�ག་གི་མདོག་
�ར་དམར། �ང་ལེབ་རོ་ཡིས་�ི་ཡི་�་མཚ�་གང་། འདི་འ�་བཅད་པའི་དགེ་བ་གང་ཡིན་དེ། མ�ེན་རབ་དབང་�ག་�གས་དགོངས་�ོགས་�ིར་དང་། ཕན་བདེའི་འ�ང་ གནས་བ�ན་པ་�ས་པའི་�ིར། མི་དབང་�་ཚ�་བ�ན་�ིར་རབ་�་བ�ོ།།
In English, the prayer reads: The colour of the sky has turned blood red. The outer oceans are filled with crushed corpses. I dedicate the virtues of abandoning [actions that caused this], for the fulfilment of wishes of the lord of the supreme knowledge (Sa skya Paṇḍita), for the spread of the Dharma that is the source of benefit and joy, and for the longevity of the lord of humans (Qubilai Khan).
79 Rossabi (1988: 200).
recognised by Qubilai and his successors. For example, as noted in chapter one, one of the number of titles Qubilai conferred on ’Phags pa was “the one who pacified the realm”, a title highly suggestive of ’Phags pa’s influence on Qubilai over temporal affairs.80 As another indication of the influence of ’Phags pa’s discourse, a eulogy of ’Phags pa from the time of the reign of emperor Sidhibala included in A Comprehensive Record of the History of the Buddhas and Patriarchs notes that:
He (Qubilai) considered that nothing was better than the Buddhist teaching to stop killing and rescue human beings with kindness and longevity. Therefore, he advocated the teaching in order to consolidate the foundation of the transformation.81
Suggesting ’Phags pa’s influence on Qubilai’s approach to governance, the same eulogy goes on to explain:
He [Qubilai] consulted with him [’Phags pa] about the highest dao
(principle) and proceeded to practice a benevolent form of government. Thus the morality [of benevolent governance] was added to the four oceans. There was nowhere that was not imbued with his benevolence.82
6. Conclusion
The discourse embodied in Advice to the King creates new regimes of truth that present an alternate view of the Khan’s identity and his world. It seeks to pivot ’Phags pa to the centre of a new universe constructed for Qubilai by that discourse and transform the dynamics of their power relationship. Consistent with the tradition within Buddhist literature of speaking truth to power, Advice to the King lends itself to assessment through the framework of the Buddhist doctrine of the two truths.
Qubilai’s status of power and affluence is presented as being the result of his past actions rather than a divine right of rulership within the framework of the law of karma, the cornerstone of the conventional truth. Within this framework, Qubilai is made known to himself as just one of countless beings churned involuntarily in the cycle of samsara whose only hope for liberation lies in complete dependence on the guru. Through the moral precepts, preliminary practices and meditation prescribed by ’Phags pa, the discourse presents an opportunity for Qubilai to achieve increasing degrees of power over himself and progress towards the boundless power of
80 A myes zhabs (2012a: 169) and Khrin chin dbyin (2006: 268).
81 Shen (2004: 201). For the original Chinese version, see Fozu lidai tongzia, ch. 22, p. 732. 82 Shen (2004: 201). For the original Chinese version, see Fozu lidai tongzia, ch. 22, p. 732−33.
buddhahood. Concurrently, the discourse effectively seeks to regulate Qubilai to act virtuously in accordance with the law of karma and to require Qubilai to voluntarily concede increasing degrees of power to ’Phags pa in their relationship. ’Phags pa’s discourse also attempts to induce Qubilai to reimagine himself as a dharmarāja, providing an alternative source of legitimacy of rulership and requiring from Qubilai behaviour and policies consistent with this identity.
The discourse relating to the ultimate truth seeks to further undermine the Khan’s perceived notion of himself and his world, presenting it all as fundamentally mere misconceptions. It presents a range of cognitive restructuring processes to undo the deeply embedded preconditioning towards this misconception, enticing Qubilai with the possibility of the realisation of a greater truth, while implicitly portraying ’Phags pa as being privy to this ultimate truth and the transcendental power that results from it. As such, the discourse sets in place what Foucault calls a “system of differentiation” that situates ’Phags pa in a position of power relative to Qubilai and that reinforces the perception of ’Phags pa as the wielder of what Max Weber refers to as the power of “charismatic authority”.
As the culmination of the religious discourses between Qubilai and ’Phags pa,
Advice to the King offers a conclusive view into the potential power that arises from ’Phags pa’s discourses and the nature of the relationship that they sought to instil. The wars that Qubilai waged and the punishments that he delivered to convicts show that his policies and actions did not always appear to be consistent with the teachings, moral precepts and the dharmarāja ideals set out by ’Phags pa. However, the lack of consensus in Buddhist literature forbidding such practices and evidence that ’Phags pa approved of or was involved in some cases of such actions suggest that not all such deeds were necessarily in contravention of ’Phags pa’s advice. Moreover, the characteristics and actions consistent with aspiring to live up to ’Phags pa’s discourses attributed to Qubilai by a range of historical accounts are also indicative of their power and practical influence.
Conclusion
They swept through the city like hungry falcons attacking a flight of doves, or like raging wolves attacking sheep, with loose reins and shameless faces, murdering and spreading fear... Beds and cushions made of gold and encrusted with jewels were cut to pieces with knives and torn to shreds. Those hidden behind the veils of the great harem were dragged... through the streets and alleys, each of them becoming a plaything in the hands of a Mongol monster.
The aftermath of the fall of Baghdad as described by Abdallah Waṣṣāf (c. 13th–14th century)1